"If all of mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
-John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1869

There is a prevailing opinion among several members of our society who feel that they are being disenfranchised by our government wanting to define what constitutes a marriage. This opinion is that the government should not regulate marriage at all and that there should be no interference within marriages by the government.

I think that this is a very interesting stance to take. Especially, since that was the rationale used to justify the spousal privilege of not being compelled to testify against your wife/husband. It was believed that testifying against one's spouse undermined the integrity and value of families. A certain group of people benefited greatly from this privilege: the mafia.

One of the other consequences of having a society where the government does not interfere with marriages is that no one could be prosecuted for spousal abuse anymore. If a woman or a man reported to a peace officer that their spouse physically assaulted them, that peace officer (under the mentality that the government should not interfere) would not pursue any action against the offending spouse.

This is not a hypothetical situation that is being described here. This is not the paranoid fantasies of someone who is seeing the worst possible outcome of future decisions. This actually happened. Peace officers refused to bring action against spousal abusers because of the belief that the government should not interfere with or regulate marriages.

Unfortunately, we are often too short-sighted to see the ramifications of obtaining what we want. The best course of action is moderation and negotiation with concessions on both sides.